Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University. He is the author of
Is the American Century Over?

I am skeptical of the term emotional intelligence. An important part concerns semi-conscious decisions that often have been made early in life: what strategies do you want for which goals? It seems to me that Trump possesses quite a lot of emotional intelligence. Only, he uses it to attack people and get them off balance.

One would think that Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder amplified by a severe case of arrested development. But why should these personality issues disqualify one for the presidency? Obama would probably do significantly better on the emotional intelligence scale, but did this success make him a successful president?

Andrew Jackson apparently was a vicious person, but he was very successful in dealing with John Calhoun and the "nullification" gang. U.S. Grant devised a campaign that was one of the bloodiest in American history, indicating a possible indifference to human life. Hoover was a decent man (Belgian Relief), but had the wrong policies in 1929-30. FDR ran on a balanced budget platform in 1932, although he reversed the policy when entering the White House. Does this indicate "emotional intelligence," or merely smart politics?

One also could consider the public stances of both major party candidates in the current presidential election "rational" in the context of the segmented political geography they both face. One panders to gender and race, the other to emotional unease. So what?

The percentage of Republican supporting Trump has been increasing smartly (pun intended) and if it eventually exceeds 90% - which the Presidential part of our unexcelled Political Election Forecasting Model expects - he will be beat Clinton, whose emotional IQ has been demonstrably lower than his.

"IQ scores predict only about 10-20% of variation in life success. The 80% that remains unexplained is the product of hundreds of factors playing out over time. Emotional intelligence is one of them," Nye writes. If emotional intelligence is only one of hundreds of factors in life success (who can say that Trump has not had life success?), why does Nye write about this, hardly quantifiable, particular one?

Nye also writes, "But Trump has proven deficient in terms of self-control, leaving him unable to move toward the center for the general election. Likewise, he has failed to display the discipline needed to master the details of foreign policy, with the result that, unlike Nixon, he comes across as naive about world affairs." Not a few presidents have been deficient in emotional intelligence (as Nye suggests, Clinton, Nixon, and maybe bullying Johnson) and successful as presidents. And most likely some have been full of EI and poor presidents. Trump is unschooled in foreign policy, just as were Clinton, W. Bush and Obama. Like those three, after eight years, he also will have learned something about foreign policy.

Emotional intelligence goes beyond the two factors Nye considers. It has an X factor, which perhaps includes some of the other hundreds of factors that Nye hypothesizes. And Trump has an X factor. He has something that caused him to wipe up the Republican field—no small feat. He has a sense of where the jugular is, how to hurt people. Yet he can impressively meet with the Mexican president, and even get along with the leader of Russia, who has Western leaders baffled and, yes, fearful of him. They seem to be baffled and fearful of Trump too. Given the slide America has taken over the last decade or two, perhaps those are not bad qualities for our next president to have.

Last, realize that the same kind of EI-deficiency article could have been written about Clinton, not Bill, but Trump’s opponent.

Do we have sufficient and unbiased data to determine what Trump is actually like? I find it impossible to differentiate between a crafted message based on market-testing, and an honest reflection of what either politician believes. As a marketing professional, I have plenty of experience in developing products and positioning them for consumption in the broader market. The Trump message persona could well be fabricated to appeal to a defined customer segment.

This is not to say that his candidacy, let alone a potential presidency, has done damage to politics in the US. If he is not defeated by a landslide future candidates will take cues from his rhetoric to gain traction and media coverage.

It is a bit late for such an article. The man has won his candidacy fair and square within a corrupt and biased system. Any candidate for the high office must undergo IQ and other tests before they can even put their name forward and they must be clean from any conflict of interest. The American voters have to choose right now between a firing squad (the M Qaddafi style) or hanging by rope (the S. Hussein style), the outcome shall be exactly the same. Good Luck.

It turns out your beloved FDR was no better than Hitler and Stalin:
- never leaving power,
- extending the depression through failed policies,
- stoking the war and then sending millions to die and kill in the imperialistic war,
- sending people to concentration camps
- selling half of Europe in communist slavery,
- etc. etc

Point by point:
- Roosevelt was democratically and fairly elected and reelected.
- The stock market discounts the future and crashed because it foresaw war. Widespread malinvestment during the 20s was exposed thus creating widespread unemployment. Probably no economic policies could have shortened or lengthened the depression. Roosevelt offered help to millions in desperation.
- Hitler and Tojo needed no help stoking war. The US did not enter the war until attacked by the Japanese. Germany declared war on US before US declared war on Germany.
- I lost half my family in Germany's concentration camps. No Japanese person can claim they lost family in the internment camps. The internment camps were a mistake but not comparable to the concentration camps.
- The Marshall Plan was a great act of (self-interested) enlightenment and steered Europe away from communism. There was no practical way to keep Stalin out of Eastern Europe. There was also a lack of popular will after fighting such an exhausting war.
- etc. etc.

You seem to lack the same emotional intelligence as Mr. Trump. You could also use a good education in history and economics - same as Mr. Trump. I suspect you need education in math, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, geography, philosophy, and literature - same as Mr. Trump.

It is so perplexing that millions of Trump-US voters with educational backgrounds varying from high school diploma to advanced professional degrees have not given time to adequate in-depth analysis of Trump's many claims about jobs , trade or defence etc. He promises jobs to frustrated job seekers. But where does it come from - from his casinos or hip pockets? US can not survive in this century without a healthy international trade with other developing countries. "Trade is a two-way street " as a former Indian prime minister Singh said. With production costs in USA many times higher than in say India, Phillippines or China, jobs are gone forever for middle class America. Which US company would not like to produce these goods abroad and ship them home. Technological methods are not the monopoly of developed countries either! Hence Trump finds a voice for unthinking and frustrated voters. The mess in USA can not be solved by bumper-sticker slogans or crudity of language , insult and degrading political process.
These problems will confront Democratic presidential candidate as well.

So Trump lacks this emotional capital and utterly deficient in wisdom. Anyway, we will wait and see what happens in November!

Bluntly many voters will vote for Trump because change any change even if it comes with Jackboots and secret police seems better then 4 more years of the status quo. The status quo being told to shut up and do as your betters tell you.

As I remember it from Mr. Ward's book, "A First Class Temperament", it was Roosevelt who visited Holmes. In so far as Holmes at that time was weak and slightly addled, it would add to Mr. Nye's point about Roosevelt's emotional intelligence.

-Thank you Mr. Baur for the dispensation. It was always so burdensome to go on with "civility rants" after reading something I disliked. Oh wait, there is no causal link between the concept of disagreement and civility. If I invite you to my house to discuss politics and request that you not yell, I'm not requesting it because I disagree with you. I'm requesting it because I don't want you to wake my sick daughter. There is no conditional here Mr. Baur. If this, not necessarily that.
-However, given your dispensation, I better understand your use of the imperial and dismissive "who" in "...who cares what unknown guy said about criminal FDR." By the way, the " unknown guy" wasn't quite so unknown. It was Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.

@Lester
No need to go on the "civility rant" when you don't like what you read.
Point is: who cares what unknown guy said about common criminal FDR? There is no lesson whatsoever to be drawn from that story. Yes, the concept is wrong - Hitler and the other criminals of that era were just as high on the "emotional IQ" scale.

I'm not certain of your point Mr. Baur. You disparage Professor Nye's anecdotal story illustrating his major point about the importance of emotional intelligence in leaders with the assertion, "Empty myth no doubt." Are you disagreeing with the concept of emotional intelligence? Are you quibbling with the historical accuracy of the anecdote? Or, in a grander leap of logic, are you arguing that the concept is wrong because the anecdote is wrong?
If indeed this is your concern, it is incumbent on you to demonstrate the falsity of the story. Do you have information that contradicts the historians' accounts. Accounts, by the way, that are based on historical documents such as calendar of events, diaries, recordings, etc.
I will make one further observation. There is a certain incivility in your responses. I don't think that is fair. This is a public forum that is open to all. Its goal is to introduce the parameters of issues that face the public. It is free. You can contribute to it as you like, as I have done, but you are not required to do that. But you are required, or should be required, to respect its mission.
One last point, and this is personal. As I tell all of my emotional friends, if you think that Clinton will be a disaster for this country, then short the market if she gets elected. Conversely, if you believe Trump will be great, then go long. But in either case, put your money where you mouth is.

I think the only way to prevent things getting worst is actively penalize whoever votes and supports this abject characters. They want to limit our freedom, so it’s time we start making people pay for their choices.

I'm never seeing or paying anything related with Clint Estwood for instance

Since the topic is on the subject of looking into a man’s soul, and the author and VIP signatories he presumably justifies do so with such alacrity, I’ll loiter a bit on his irresistible scenario.

Reading into the souls of the gents and ladies who signed the letter the distinguished gentleman also signed, one wonders just whose emotional intelligence is in evidence and may be questioned. Theirs or Mr. Trumps? One wonders that it may actually be theirs that is exposed – their sense of importance that has been slighted by The Donald’s disregard for their approval – his inexcusable insouciance to their out held ring and potential blessing.

Such is the height from where these respected dons, deans, scions, former secretaries, former everything, look out on the actors playing upon the greatest world’s stage, that they may fail to consider that the most instinctual actor of all may be Mr. Trump, and that his actor’s inspiration may be so formed that it defies even the best director’s craftiness or experience.

While one may certainly understand Mr. Nye's alarm at Mr. Trump's intemperance, the former may have failed to justly consider that Mr. Trump simply plays to the audience, and not for the acclaim of those behind the curtain.